Is Religion Compatible with Democracy?

[Delkaetre]

What do you think? Is religion democracy's ally or its enemy? Do they work well together, do they clash, or are they simply two neutral entities co-existing peacefully?

[grauenacht]

It is in my humble opinion that all governments systems that plan to last require a form of religion in order to keep social control. Human beings are easily dictated by faith, and they have been for centuries, so there would be no reason for any nation not make use of the people's chosen faith. Though I don't want to offend anyone, I do think that if such an entity like Christianity was not necessary to the way the system works, then it would simply have never existed in the first place. I feel that due to the very nature of democratic society, it more so than other governing systems requires the type of catholic social agenda that religion provides.

Normally, I'd be all over this topic, and under normal circumstances I'd typed out a rather thorough essay. But unfortunately I'm about to go, so I'll have to settle on these vague sentences.

[CptSternn]

It is compatible, however that being said, in todays society you don't really see it.

Politicians have used religion to influence democracy. They didn't have to, but have done so as to influence public opinion and have turned religion into a cudgel which they use to beat the opposition with.

The reality is, it doesn't conflict, unless the powers that be attempt to use religion as something other than it was originally intended.

[Methadrine]

Damn, I wrote a lenghty reply to this but then I got logged out for inactivity so it all went 'poof'.

Anyway, as I see it, religion and democracy is not allies but a lot of people fight to the death to make it that way. Ridiculous I say, as religion should not in any way be mixed into how a nation is governed. Democracy does work perfectly fine without that crap, thank you, as the old greeks certainly proved.

It's the 2000's and people still believe in that crap called religion on a greater scale than the individual belief it should be.. and noone's terrified by it. Utterly scary IMHO.

I say as I say about the educational system: Keep religion as far away from it as possible.

I like to agree with CptSternn's last words, and unfortunately religion is not used at all as it was originally intended nowadays.

[Drake Dun]

The answer has got to be that it depends on the religion.

Drake

[Lapin]

I don't think religion and politics should mix at all, because whenever it does, things get messy. I am not a Christian, and it annoys me beyond all belief to see Christianity used and abused by our politicians (I am an American).

It annoys me even more when Christian morals are used as an excuse to pass laws against 'immorality'; i.e. gay rights, women's rights, civil rights in general, stem cell research, etc. Especially since I seem to remember a section of our Constitution reading "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So, you are allowed to say whatever you want, but your religion, no matter what it is, has no business in the laws of the country.

This is also the reason I refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, that, and it kind of freaks me out. It makes me think of dictatorships.

Back on topic; I am a devout pagan, but I've never advertised it. I would never want my religion pressed upon others, because I understand that it doesn't float everyone's boat. I would never get behind any group that tried to enforce pagan morals upon lawmakers.

So, in conclusion, I do not think politics and religion should ever mix.

[KontanKarite]

Religion is a GREAT way to sway votes on your side. How else are we supposed to keep our flock in check? So long as people think our leaders are inspired by the ever mighty GOD, how could you possibly go against that?

Religion is a perfectly useful tool to manipulate those who wont think for themselves. As much as I think there really shouldn't be such a government involvement at all, it just stands to reason that some people are NOT going to use their heads.

Who knows? Maybe someday all people will be able to make perfectly educated and reasonable decisions based on their own knowledge.

As the good book says, Seek and you shall find. If you're just making decisions based on what some rich guy tells you what the bible says, you're not seeking shit and you're finding nothing.

[Splintered]

The best argument I've ever seen is this.

When Christianity was at the height of it's power (If my European History memory is correct, then the Catholic Church held vast amounts of power during the Dark Ages, up to the Renaissance), the world was in virtual decay. When alternatives to religion was found (Humanism), the world skyrocketed.

So, we've seen where religion has a lot of power exerted, and the whole world went wrong.

However, does that mean it's democracy's ally or enemy? Well. Can democracy have either? What is the difference between the belief in Christianity, and the belief in Socialism? The belief in Buddhism, and the belief in Capitalism?

At the very core, it is all beliefs. All of it.

Democracy has no enemies: It must be neutral to all, and accept what the populace votes for, religious or not.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Splintered

What is the difference between the belief in Christianity, and the belief in Socialism? The belief in Buddhism, and the belief in Capitalism?

At the very core, it is all beliefs. All of it.

Certainly it is all belief, but there is an observable distinction between Christianity or Buddhism on the one hand, and socialism or capitalism on the other. The latter two do not necessarily depend upon unverifiable claims of a metaphysical nature.

That's a meaningful difference.

Drake

[Rosie]

Organised religion is not.

Because it artificially influences people to think a certain way, you can't take each vote to be from an independent, intelligent human being.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Certainly it is all belief, but there is an observable distinction between Christianity or Buddhism on the one hand, and socialism or capitalism on the other. The latter two do not necessarily depend upon unverifiable claims of a metaphysical nature.

That's a meaningful difference.

Drake

Not neccesarily.

They do actually depend on unverifiable claims, to a major extent. When have we ever seen "true" socialism, or "true" capitalism? In reality, we've always seen a mix, but there has never seen the "actual" forms of the systems.

Capitalism and Socialism make a lot of claims, that by themselves, they will produce X, Y, or Z result, or X, Y, and Z will occur some time in the future, due to the system. However, I do not believe there is any evidence, supporting what will happen, because they have never occured in their true forms.

[Drake Dun]

Any time you are studying something involving humans, or worse yet, groups of humans, things are difficult because there are practical limitations to your ability to apply the scientific method. But that doesn't mean you can't learn anything. Products, money, transaction, labor... all of these are things that exist in the real world and can in principle be studied and understood.

Economists and political activists may be full of shit a lot of the time, but at least they understand that they are expected to articulate coherent reasons for what they believe. No socialist or capitalist would ever tell you "I have no evidence for this, but it's what I believe based on faith, and you should respect that."

Whereas religious people want to tell you what to eat, who to kill, which day of the week to buy your groceries, and where to put your penis, all based on stuff that some desert madman made up during an epileptic fit two thousand years ago on the other side of the planet.

Drake

[Godslayer Jillian]

Religion is perfectly compatible with democracy. Democracy just means rule by the people, remember?
So if the majority of the people have a specific religion, it's only logical that its doctrines are going to affect this society we're talking about, and how is that not democracy?
Shouldn't the question be if religion has a positive influence on democracy?

[Splintered]

You see Drake, I really respect your argument. However, if you tweak it a little bit, you can easily see how it fits in to the same category of religion.

Let me demonstrate:

"There are practical limitations to your ability to apply the scientific method", is something Theologists jump all over. I agree, there are practical limitations to the scientific method. These practical limitations apply just as much to socialism and capitalism, as they do religion.

Take the entire creationist movement. It's an attempt to evidence from physics, biology, and various other aspects of "Well accepted science" to promote the belief that there must be an intelligent designer in the sky. They then claim that there are repeatable, experimental results, that point directly to the position of a creator.

The same can be applied to your second paragraph, if you replace "Economists" and "Political Activists" with "Clergymen" and "Clergy...women?". No Christian or Muslim would tell you, "I have no evidence for this either" except for rare cases of people who would admit that, which I'd imagine is the same percentage of people who would admit that in politics.

Political people want to tell you what to eat (New Deal's farming subsidies), who to kill (Any army), which day of the weak to buy your groceries (War rationing), where to put your penis (Anti-sodomy laws), all based on stuff that some guy in a suit made up during the drive to take over the world, several hundred years ago on the other side of the planet.

I still hold that the same concepts can apply.

[Godslayer Jillian]

The difference I see between religion and socio-politico-economic theories is that the former dwell on what Is while the latter focuses on what Ought to Be.
There's an astronomical difference between those two.

[Splintered]

I don't see that difference, because most "socio-politico-economic" theories also must inherently state that the current condition must have *some* effect on our current world.

[Godslayer Jillian]

The current condition, which means what Is doesn't have much affect on the theory which is what Ought to Be except that it is still not what it ought to be.
And then if a socio-politico-economic theory does achieve absolutely all of its goals, shifting from what Ought to Be to what Is, then it's obvious that it is verifiable, because it happened.

[Splintered]

I get what you are saying.

I think I messed up my wording above, I'll try to be more clear.

All theories have to exist in all three states, of past, present, and future. Even the theories of what will happen at end of the universe have to show signs of what should be happening now.

Socio-politico-economic theories do the same thing. Capitalism very succinctly states that a lack of regulation of businesses, would provide the best possible services and would be best for the economy; the free market will guide the way. Meanwhile, Communism states that until there is a revolution, people are more or less oppressed, and that capital in control of very few people is generally going to lead to the majority of people being oppressed.

So, because of that, I would contend that it does have an effect on what *is* today.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I still would only say that the theories are fueled and inspired by what is today, but we can't say that a part of them already [i]is[/b] in our society, which goes back to what you were saying about how political theories are unverifiable in the present.

[Splintered]

And then you get in to a problem:

If you can't say they have a measurable effect today, how can we say they will have a measurable effect tomorrow?

Which, in my mind, puts it in the same category as religious beliefs. If they are accurate theories, then are already having an effect on today. If they are not accurate theories, then we can't tell if they are not having an effect on today. We also can't tell if they will have an effect tomorrow.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Political theories can be measured because of the logic behind them for what we know in the present, which goes back to what I said about how they're inspired and fueled by the present. They are not existing in the moment, but they can be predicted, just as a machine doesn't exist prior to construction but can (and must) be planned out.
Indeed, with religions, we cannot say they won't have an effect on tomorrow, if we're thinking in the manner of how Buddhism 'just works' or how if everyone were a real Christian a real utopian theocracy might be possible. But this, again, is not what religions focus themselves on. This is an approach on what religion Ought to Be again, but religions are arbitrarily absolute and therefore never allow themselves to think on what the religion Ought to Be. It's always what the religion Is and what the rest of society ought to be according to what the religion is.

[Splintered]

Wouldn't religion, if thought to be "What ought to be", be the same as what it "is"?

They are absolute. Absolute has to exist in the three aforementioned tenses, past, present, and future. In this case, it exists in at least the two.

The "What Ought To Be" of the religion would be the "What Is", at the same time. The theory persists, even if there isn't much of a change. I could liken it to gravity. The theory has practical implications in the "What Ought To Be", even though it doesn't change much on a day to day basis.

For the "What Ought To Be", if we must go to extremes, we can argue that religions will predict that there will be some event, such as an apocalypse, armageddon, etc.

[Apathy's_Child]

Incompatible.

Democracy depends upon votes and/or support - i.e. governing by the people (in theory that is).

Religion depends upon the idea of absolute truth. I.e. if anyone disagrees they're wrong, no voting necessary. Why? Because [insert deity] says so. That is all.

[Godslayer Jillian]

If democracy depends upon the people, and the majority of the people believe in an absolute, how is this absolute not democratic?

[7734¯7IA3]

Originally Posted by grauenacht

Normally, I'd be all over this topic, and under normal circumstances I'd typed out a rather thorough essay. But unfortunately I'm about to go, so I'll have to settle on these vague sentences.

Don't bother....the board moderators won't allow you to post your essay, as they have not allowed me to post mine in defense of my thesis....

Cheers mate!